In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

An outbreak of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in China has influenced every aspect of life. Healthcare professionals, especially dentists, are exposed to a higher risk of getting infected due to close contact with infected patients. The current study was conducted to assess anxiety and fear of getting infected among dentists while working during the current novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) outbreak. In addition, dentists’ knowledge about various practice modifications to combat COVID-19 has been evaluated. A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey from 10th to 17th March 2020. The well-constructed questionnaire was designed and registered at online website (Kwiksurveys) and validated. A total of 669 participants from 30 different countries across the world responded. After scrutiny, completed questionnaires (n = 650) were included in the study. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25. Chi-Square and Spearman correlation tests were applied to control confounders and assess the relation of dentists’ response with respect to gender and educational level. More than two-thirds of the general dental practitioners (78%) from 30 countries questioned were anxious and scared by the devastating effects of COVID-19. A large number of dentists (90%) were aware of recent changes in the treatment protocols. However, execution of amended treatment protocol was recorded as 61%. The majority of the dentists (76%) were working in the hospital setting out of which 74% were from private, and 20% were from government setups. Individually we received a large number of responses from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but collectively more than 50% of the responses were from other parts of the world. Despite having a high standard of knowledge and practice, dental practitioners around the globe are in a state of anxiety and fear while working in their respective fields due to the COVID-19 pandemic impact on humanity. A number of dental practices have either modified their services according to the recommended guidelines to emergency treatment only or closed down practices for an uncertain period.

Objective. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the quality and outcome of studies into artificial intelligence techniques, analysis, and effect in dentistry. Materials and Methods. Using the MeSH keywords: artificial intelligence (AI), dentistry, AI in dentistry, neural networks and dentistry, machine learning, AI dental imaging, and AI treatment recommendations and dentistry. Two investigators performed an electronic search in 5 databases: PubMed/MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), Scopus (Elsevier), ScienceDirect databases (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and the Cochrane Collaboration (Wiley). The English language articles reporting on AI in different dental specialties were screened for eligibility. Thirty‐two full‐text articles were selected and systematically analyzed according to a predefined inclusion criterion. These articles were analyzed as per a specific research question, and the relevant data based on article general characteristics, study and control groups, assessment methods, outcomes, and quality assessment were extracted. Results. The initial search identified 175 articles related to AI in dentistry based on the title and abstracts. The full text of 38 articles was assessed for eligibility to exclude studies not fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Six articles not related to AI in dentistry were excluded. Thirty‐two articles were included in the systematic review. It was revealed that AI provides accurate patient management, dental diagnosis, prediction, and decision making. Artificial intelligence appeared as a reliable modality to enhance future implications in the various fields of dentistry, i.e., diagnostic dentistry, patient management, head and neck cancer, restorative dentistry, prosthetic dental sciences, orthodontics, radiology, and periodontics. Conclusion. The included studies describe that AI is a reliable tool to make dental care smooth, better, time‐saving, and economical for practitioners. AI benefits them in fulfilling patient demand and expectations. The dentists can use AI to ensure quality treatment, better oral health care outcome, and achieve precision. AI can help to predict failures in clinical scenarios and depict reliable solutions. However, AI is increasing the scope of state‐of‐the‐art models in dentistry but is still under development. Further studies are required to assess the clinical performance of AI techniques in dentistry.

Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98-1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87-1·03; p=0·24). In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

BACKGROUND: E-learning is increasingly used during the COVID-19 pandemic, however the impact of this change on students is not known. This study aimed to evaluate perception and satisfaction of health sciences students towards E-learning during the COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was distributed to 2000 health care students either through email or social media platforms. The questionnaire was divided into two sections: the first section addressed demographic information such as age, education level, course of study, number of lectures attended and country. The second section gathered information on perception and satisfaction of students using 13 close-ended questions. Frequencies and percentages were assessed for demographic data, perception and satisfaction level of students. The paired sample t-test, independent t test and Spearman correlation were applied to evaluate statistical significance between different variables of the study. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Data from 1255 participants were included at a response rate of 66.4%. More than one third (37%) of the students took 25 or more online E-learning sessions and 47% preferred Zoom as an online platform. Participants belonged to 11 countries from developed and developing nations. 41% reported interference of E-learning due to network problems. 60% considered that clinical and practical skills are best learned in clinics and laboratories. More than one third of the students preferred classroom teaching and 34% of the students did not feel confident enough to take exit exams after E-learning sessions. CONCLUSION: E-learning satisfaction levels were better among developed countries (7.34) compared to developing countries (5.82). The majority of participants agreed that E-learning was satisfactory in acquiring knowledge, however not effective in acquiring clinical and technical skills. As the COVID-19 lockdown eases, there is a need for improvement in the methods employed in E-learning and more blended learning among healthcare students is recommended.